Quadro K610M vs GeForce 840M
Aggregate performance score
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 758 | 870 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | N15S-GT | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 12 March 2014 (10 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229.99 |
| Current price | $743 | $210 (0.9x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GeForce 840M and Quadro K610M have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 954 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 | 15.68 |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 376.3 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce 840M and Quadro K610M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 20.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | + |
| GameWorks | + | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 49% in Passmark.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 105% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 41% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 108% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 49% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 189% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 5%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 159% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 270% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GeForce 840M outperforms Quadro K610M by 139% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 45
+50%
| 30−35
−50%
|
| Full HD | 17
+41.7%
| 12
−41.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GeForce 840M and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:
- GeForce 840M is 50% faster in 900p
- GeForce 840M is 42% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce 840M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce 840M is ahead in 46 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.81 | 1.89 |
| Recency | 12 March 2014 | 23 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 30 Watt |
The GeForce 840M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K610M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 840M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K610M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
